Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic of the paper “Unmasking the True Self: Self-Disclosure and Authenticity on Social Networking Sites” and the idea proposed by the authors are both highly important and timely. The number of scientific and review papers cited is impressive.

However, the manuscript has significant technical and substantive shortcomings. The main criticism concerns the absence of a clear methodological framework for conducting the review analysis. Essential elements are missing, such as registration of the review protocol in a database (e.g., PROSPERO), the specification of inclusion/exclusion criteria and databases consulted in selecting the articles, as well as the procedures for screening and evaluating the studies, along with all subsequent steps.

In addition, some sections of the paper lack proper references, and many of the sources cited are outdated, which is problematic given the contemporary relevance of the topic.

My suggestion to the authors is to retain the core idea but to conduct a methodologically sound qualitative review. Such an approach would not only strengthen the scientific weight of the paper but also enhance its methodological rigor and relevance.

For these reasons, I recommend that the paper should not be accepted for publication in its current form.

However, the manuscript has significant technical and substantive shortcomings. The main criticism concerns the absence of a clear methodological framework for conducting the review analysis. Essential elements are missing, such as registration of the review protocol in a database (e.g., PROSPERO), the specification of inclusion/exclusion criteria and databases consulted in selecting the articles, as well as the procedures for screening and evaluating the studies, along with all subsequent steps.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Contemporary social media is of course a panorama and major playing field for performances of the self. As such, the article is quite timely and relevant, especially given (1) its survey or meta-study of multiple publications on the subject and (2) the various theoretical and conceptual points it raises. Naturally, any meta-study is only as good as the studies upon which it draws. In this particular case, studies upon which it draws seem to have a distinctly and unselfconsciously Western bias. Anthropological and other cross-cultural studies of social media use and self-portrayal paint a more complex picture; users do not always have or perform a single unified self or identity (granting the problematic relation between those two phenomena, as the paper emphasizes). In fact, while the concept of True Self is fascinating, often the point of social media even in the West is not to depict a true self (whatever that may be) but precisely to modify, fragment, or in the worst case dissimulate the self. So, while a search for the True Self in social networking sites is certainly a valid task, it is not the end of the story of SNS use. Indeed, often the point is to experiment with alter-selves or to show just part of the self to various audiences. It would be interesting for the article to grapple with this problem. Finally, since the article refers to 150 sources, it would be valuable if there was some kind of quantitative, statistical information on those sources: for instance, what disciplines do they represent, what key words recur, how often do particular themes come up, what theories if any do they invoke? This information could be included in the body of the essay or as an appendix.

I don't think there is anything necessarily wrong or unclear in the paper. In lines 13-14 of the introduction, the author refers to self-dimensions that are unexpressed offline due to fear of judgment, so somewhere in the essay the author might mention "epistemic bunkers" where people can precisely be "their true selves" with others of similar mind so as to avoid judgment by antagonists (although these authentic selves are often quite reprehensible); on the other hand, people often show their true selves--or exaggerate their reprehensibility--specifically to aggravate antagonists.  In section 4, starting on line 360, the author might mention that the self is a controversial concept which is conceived and experienced diversely across cultures; the article takes for granted the Western notion of self--or at least the studies on which it based do. On lines 423-4, the author describes the self as coherent and continuous, but just a few lines later (434) the author cites two scholars who characterize the self as variable ("self-concept at a given point") and multiple ("now selves" and "possible selves"). This contradiction could be explored profitably.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The relevance of this contribution to the existing knowledge includes confirming that "authenticity lies in the presentation of self in a manner that resonates with the person's inner reality, regardless of external or any situational norms". 

The reference list on line 686 (serial number 5) seems unnecessary and advisable to be excluded from the study, because its relevance is insignificant in this study.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear authors!
 
I have read your article. I will immediately note that the article submitted for review is extremely important in the modern context of scientific reflection and, in general, your article is well written.
 
Nevertheless, let me point out several clearly important shortcomings, the correction of which, I hope, will improve the article.

 

 
1. Abstract. Look again and structure it more concentratedly, as required by the article in this journal in blocks.
 
2. Objective. Formulate it clearly and concentratedly, in this case the objective is formulated too broadly.
 
3. Therefore, I believe that the title could be a little more concentrated, made more narrow.
 
4. Novelty. It is not clear enough what the original contribution of the author is, it is desirable to more clearly differentiate it from everything that was done before you.
 
5. Literary review. The literature search methods are not very clearly spelled out. The criteria are not clear
6. I also believe that your work will be strengthened if you introduce more Institutional sources, especially recent years, given the current changes and their speed.
 
7. Article structure. Does not meet MDPI standards. Look at and analyze other articles in this journal regarding the structure or read the requirements.
8. Conclusions. The connection with the objectives is not clearly traced.
9. Research limitations. Be sure to specify. This is usually done at the very end of the article
 
Thus, I would like to note once again that your article is written quite well. However, I believe that the above shortcomings need to be worked out, the correction of which, I hope, will improve the article and make it more attractive to the reader. And this, in general, is our common goal.
Good luck to you on your scientific path!

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have invested considerable effort in revising the manuscript, and the methodological section has been substantially improved. I recommend including a PRISMA flow diagram, with all the required elements, to further enhance the clarity and transparency of the methodological process. Following this addition, I suggest the manuscript be accepted for publication.

The authors have invested considerable effort in revising the manuscript, and the methodological section has been substantially improved. I recommend including a PRISMA flow diagram, with all the required elements, to further enhance the clarity and transparency of the methodological process. Following this addition, I suggest the manuscript be accepted for publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear authors! Thank you for the revised version of the article.

It should be noted that the authors have generally revised the article. They took into account my comments and presented a new version, which takes into account and corrects the main points regarding almost all of my comments.

 

Thus, I would like to note once again that your article is quite well-developed. Nevertheless, I believe that the shortcomings indicated need to be worked out.

I wish you success in your scientific publications!

 

The article looks much better in this version. However, I would like to note one remark that seems significant in the topic of your scientific research, and which was not fully developed.
It is good that you are so reverent about fundamental works, but in the last two years, there has been a rapid discussion of the role of AI (for example, ChatGPT, etc.) in the formation of digital identity and authenticity. Even a brief remark that new technologies open up prospects for future research in the field of self-disclosure will make the article more relevant and promising. Without this, an article published in 2025 reduces its relevance.
In addition, I recommend that the authors supplement the literature with recent publications from recent years to show the connection of the work with the most modern discussions in the field. It seems to me that your article requires strengthening the literature base with new sources. This is up to you.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx